MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma

Clinical Imaging

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 41-49

  Young, Robert J ^a   Gupta, Ajay ^a   Shah, Akash D ^a   Graber, Jerome J ^a   Chan, Timothy A ^a   Zhang, Zhigang ^a   Shi, Weiji ^a   Beal, Kathryn ^a   Omuro, Antonio M ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Glioblastoma; MRI perfusion; Progression; Pseudoprogression

Indexed keywords

CEREBRAL BLOOD VOLUME; DSC MRI; DYNAMIC SUSCEPTIBILITY CONTRAST; GLIOBLASTOMAS; PEAK HEIGHT; PROGRESSION; PSEUDOPROGRESSION; SIGNAL RECOVERY;

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY;

PATIENT TREATMENT;

TEMOZOLOMIDE;

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BRAIN BLOOD VOLUME; CANCER ADJUVANT THERAPY; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER SURGERY; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PERCENT SIGNAL RECOVERY; PERFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RELATIVE BRAIN BLOOD VOLUME; RELATIVE PEAK HEIGHT; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCHOOL CHILD; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CHILD; DISEASE PROGRESSION; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; GLIOBLASTOMA; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEW YORK; PREVALENCE; RISK FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84872391677     PISSN: 08997071     EISSN: 18734499     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2012.02.016     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Macdonald D.R., Cascino T.L., Schold S.C., Cairncross J.G. Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1990, 8(7):1277-1280.
2. Brandsma D., Stalpers L., Taal W., Sminia P., van den Bent M.J. Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol 2008, 9(5):453-461.
3. Chamberlain M.C., Glantz M.J., Chalmers L., Van Horn A., Sloan A.E. Early necrosis following concurrent Temodar and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2007, 82(1):81-83.
4. Brandes A.A., Franceschi E., Tosoni A., et al. MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26(13):2192-2197.
5. Chaskis C., Neyns B., Michotte A., De Ridder M., Everaert H. Pseudoprogression after radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide for high-grade glioma: clinical observations and working recommendations. Surg Neurol 2009, 72(4):423-428.
6. Taal W., Brandsma D., de Bruin H.G., et al. Incidence of early pseudo-progression in a cohort of malignant glioma patients treated with chemoirradiation with temozolomide. Cancer 2008, 113(2):405-410.
7. de Wit M.C., de Bruin H.G., Eijkenboom W., Sillevis Smitt P.A., van den Bent M.J. Immediate post-radiotherapy changes in malignant glioma can mimic tumor progression. Neurology 2004, 63(3):535-537.
8. Wen P.Y., Macdonald D.R., Reardon D.A., et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28(11):1963-1972.
9. Perry J.R., Belanger K., Mason W.P., et al. Phase II trial of continuous dose-intense temozolomide in recurrent malignant glioma: RESCUE study. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28(12):2051-2057.
10. Barajas R.F., Chang J.S., Sneed P.K., Segal M.R., McDermott M.W., Cha S. Distinguishing recurrent intra-axial metastatic tumor from radiation necrosis following gamma knife radiosurgery using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009, 30(2):367-372.
11. Law M. Advanced imaging techniques in brain tumors. Cancer Imaging 2009, 9 Spec No A:S4-9.
12. Cha S., Johnson G., Wadghiri Y.Z., et al. Dynamic, contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI in mouse gliomas: correlation with histopathology. Magn Reson Med 2003, 49(5):848-855.
13. Law M., Young R.J., Babb J.S., et al. Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2008, 247(2):490-498.
14. Sugahara T., Korogi Y., Shigematsu Y., et al. Value of dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of intracranial tumors. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1999, 10(2):114-124.
15. Mangla R., Singh G., Ziegelitz D., et al. Changes in relative cerebral blood volume 1 month after radiation-temozolomide therapy can help predict overall survival in patients with glioblastoma. Radiology 2010.
16. Cha S., Knopp E.A., Johnson G., Wetzel S.G., Litt A.W., Zagzag D. Intracranial mass lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted echo-planar perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2002, 223(1):11-29.
17. Hu L.S., Baxter L.C., Smith K.A., et al. Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009, 30(3):552-558.
18. Young R.J., Knopp E.A. Brain MRI: tumor evaluation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006, 24(4):709-724.
19. Tsien C., Galban C.J., Chenevert T.L., et al. Parametric response map as an imaging biomarker to distinguish progression from pseudoprogression in high-grade glioma. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28(13):2293-2299.
20. Clarke J.L., Chang S. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: challenges in brain tumor imaging. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2009, 9(3):241-246.
21. Roa W., Brasher P.M., Bauman G., et al. Abbreviated course of radiation therapy in older patients with glioblastoma multiforme: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22(9):1583-1588.
22. Clarke J.L., Iwamoto F.M., Sul J., et al. Randomized phase II trial of chemoradiotherapy followed by either dose-dense or metronomic temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27(23):3861-3867.
23. Pope W.B., Kim H.J., Huo J., et al. Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: ADC histogram analysis predicts response to bevacizumab treatment1. Radiology 2009, 252(1):182-189.
24. Wetzel S.G., Cha S., Johnson G., et al. Relative cerebral blood volume measurements in intracranial mass lesions: interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. Radiology 2002, 224(3):797-803.
25. Young R., Babb J., Law M., Pollack E., Johnson G. Comparison of region-of-interest analysis with three different histogram analysis methods in the determination of perfusion metrics in patients with brain gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007, 26(4):1053-1063.
26. Mangla R., Kolar B., Zhu T., Zhong J., Almast J., Ekholm S. Percentage signal recovery derived from MR dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging is useful to differentiate common enhancing malignant lesions of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011, 32(6):1004-1010.
27. Omuro A.M., Leite C.C., Mokhtari K., Delattre J.Y. Pitfalls in the diagnosis of brain tumours. Lancet Neurol 2006, 5(11):937-948.
28. Dhermain F.G., Hau P., Lanfermann H., Jacobs A.H., van den Bent M.J. Advanced MRI and PET imaging for assessment of treatment response in patients with gliomas. Lancet Neurol 2010, 9(9):906-920.
29. Covarrubias D.J., Rosen B.R., Lev M.H. Dynamic magnetic resonance perfusion imaging of brain tumors. Oncologist 2004, 9(5):528-537.
30. Barajas R.F., Chang J.S., Segal M.R., et al. Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2009, 253(2):486-496.
31. Al-Okaili R.N., Krejza J., Woo J.H., et al. Intraaxial brain masses: MR imaging-based diagnostic strategy-initial experience. Radiology 2007, 243(2):539-550.
32. Gasparetto E.L., Pawlak M.A., Patel S.H., et al. Posttreatment recurrence of malignant brain neoplasm: accuracy of relative cerebral blood volume fraction in discriminating low from high malignant histologic volume fraction. Radiology 2009, 250(3):887-896.
33. Marks J.E., Wong J. The risk of cerebral radionecrosis in relation to dose, time and fractionation. A follow-up study. Prog Exp Tumor Res 1985, 29:210-218.
34. Gahramanov S., Raslan A.M., Muldoon L.L., et al. Potential for differentiation of pseudoprogression from true tumor progression with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using ferumoxytol vs. gadoteridol: a pilot study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011, 79(2):514-523.
35. Alexiou G.A., Tsiouris S., Kyritsis A.P., Voulgaris S., Argyropoulou M.I., Fotopoulos A.D. Glioma recurrence versus radiation necrosis: accuracy of current imaging modalities. J Neuro-Oncol 2009, 95(1):1-11.
36. Hein P.A., Eskey C.J., Dunn J.F., Hug E.B. Diffusion-weighted imaging in the follow-up of treated high-grade gliomas: tumor recurrence versus radiation injury. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004, 25(2):201-209.
37. Ogawa T., Kanno I., Hatazawa J., et al. Methionine PET for follow-up of radiation therapy of primary lymphoma of the brain. Radiographics 1994, 14(1):101-110.
38. Rock J.P., Hearshen D., Scarpace L., et al. Correlations between magnetic resonance spectroscopy and image-guided histopathology, with special attention to radiation necrosis. Neurosurgery 2002, 51(4):912-919. [discussion 919-20].
39. Sundgren P.C. MR spectroscopy in radiation injury. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009, 30(8):1469-1476.
40. Sundgren P.C., Fan X., Weybright P., et al. Differentiation of recurrent brain tumor versus radiation injury using diffusion tensor imaging in patients with new contrast-enhancing lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 2006, 24(9):1131-1142.
41. Weybright P., Sundgren P.C., Maly P., et al. Differentiation between brain tumor recurrence and radiation injury using MR spectroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005, 185(6):1471-1476.
42. Huang J., Wang A.M., Shetty A., et al. Differentiation between intra-axial metastatic tumor progression and radiation injury following fractionated radiation therapy or stereotactic radiosurgery using MR spectroscopy, perfusion MR imaging or volume progression modeling. Magn Reson Imaging 2011, 29(7):993-1001.
43. Henry R.G., Vigneron D.B., Fischbein N.J., et al. Comparison of relative cerebral blood volume and proton spectroscopy in patients with treated gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000, 21(2):357-366.
44. Galban C.J., Chenevert T.L., Meyer C.R., et al. Prospective analysis of parametric response map-derived MRI biomarkers: identification of early and distinct glioma response patterns not predicted by standard radiographic assessment. Clin Cancer Res 2011, 17(14):4751-4760.
45. Kreisl T.N., Kim L., Moore K., et al. Phase II trial of single-agent bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab plus irinotecan at tumor progression in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27(5):740-745.
46. Prayson R.A., Agamanolis D.P., Cohen M.L., et al. Interobserver reproducibility among neuropathologists and surgical pathologists in fibrillary astrocytoma grading. J Neurol Sci 2000, 175(1):33-39.
47. Iwamoto F.M., Abrey L.E., Beal K., et al. Patterns of relapse and prognosis after bevacizumab failure in recurrent glioblastoma. Neurology 2009, 73(15):1200-1206.
48. Omuro A., Beal K., Karimi S., et al. Phase II study of bevacizumab (BEV), temozolomide (TMZ), and hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HFSRT) for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) 2010, 28(15 suppl):2036.
49. Lai A., Tran A., Nghiemphu P.L., et al. Phase II study of bevacizumab plus temozolomide during and after radiation therapy for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29(2):142-148.